Even before they leave Oxford in 2060, there are ominous signs that something's up with time-travel. Schedules are being rearranged, missions postponed or moved forward, and administrators (including Mr. Dunworthy, the all-powerful head honcho) off on emergency conferences to discuss different theories of time-travel.
Polly, Mike, and Eileen each have their difficulties, and when they arrive in their past eras, things are still going wrong. Each suffers an inconvenient amount of “slippage,” arriving well past their assigned target dates. Then, each one must deal with the challenges of working in the field, finding out that assignments that seemed simple are anything but. Polly has to find a place to live, get a job, and somehow get more appropriate clothes while spending most of her time huddling in bomb shelters. Mike is stranded in a sleepy seaside village thirty miles from where he's supposed to be, with no way to get there. And Eileen, who has her hands full with two of the most obnoxious children in history, is looking forward to the end of her assignment when an outbreak of measles traps her in a quarantined house.
Then things get really bad. Because it soon becomes obvious that their temporal gateways are not opening on schedule—in fact, they aren't opening at all. Apparently, something has gone terribly wrong in the future, and the three are stranded. Their only chance is to find one another . . . if they can make their way through falling bombs, V1 rockets, and the nightmare of World War II London.
This isn't a book to race though. You'll want time to savor the experience, and at nearly 500 pages there's a lot to savor. Don't worry—with Connie Willis you're in the hands of a master, and she's not going to lead you astray or waste your time.
Blackout—like much of Connie Willis's other work—tells the story of rather ordinary people caught up in extraordinary times and events, and somehow rising heroically to the challenge. For in the end, the historians from the future are in the same boat as the people of the past they've come to study: they don't know what's going on or what's going to happen next, and all they can do is live through it as best they can.
Fair warning: Blackout is only the first half of the story. The whole tale is too big to be published in one volume, and I dare anyone to find a single sentence that could be cut. The conclusion, All Clear, will be published later this year. But don't wait for it: read Blackout now.
* * * *
Veracity
Laura Bynum
Pocket, 376 pages, $25.00 (hardcover)
ISBN: 0-978-1-4391-2334-8
Genre: Dystopian Futures
* * * *
Veracity is one of those books that's just as at home in literary circles as among science fiction readers. It's a novel of a dystopian future, and before you start groaning that you've seen this before, take a moment to look. There's a lot here that's fresh.
In 2012, terrorists unleashed a virus that killed half the world's population. The result was a new oppressive government called The Confederation of the Willing, which exists to maintain security and order at all costs. The main instrument of the Confederation is the “slate,” a device implanted in the neck of every citizen. Using slates, the Confederation controls behavior by controlling speech itself. Certain words are forbidden: to utter them results in immediate physical pain—and to continue uttering them quickly brings a visit from the brutal police force known as the Blue Coats.
Most people live with the restrictions of the Confederation, grateful for the security it gives. Harper Adams is one of those people; a child during the terrorist attacks, Harper is now a grown woman with a daughter of her own, and she's as law-abiding as they come.
Until her daughter is taken from her. Until her daughter's very name, Veracity, becomes a forbidden word.
Then Harper runs, goes off the grid, destroys her own slate, and starts a search for the fabled resistance. But unlike the other rebels, Harper isn't just fighting for freedom, for liberty, or for the defeat of tyranny. No, Harper is fighting for Veracity . . . and for truth itself.
Not just another Brave New World or Handmaid's Tale wannabe, Veracity is a unique book with powerful characters and a fully realized future society. It reminds one of some of the best work of Frederik Pohl, with perhaps healthy quantities of Edgar Pangborn and Suzy McKee Charnas thrown in. This is Laura Bynum's first book; if the literary establishment doesn't seduce her away from us, she's definitely a name to watch in the future.
* * * *
Pennterra
Judith Moffett
Fantastic Books, 288 pages, $14.99
(trade paperback)
ISBN: 978-1-60459-729-5
Genres: Alien Beings, Ecological/Environmental SF, Psychological/Sociological SF, Religious/Philosophical SF
* * * *
Judith Moffett is a voice we haven't heard from enough. She won the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer in 1988, has been a Hugo and Nebula finalist on several occasions, and has been shortlisted for the James Tiptree, Jr. Award for science fiction or fantasy that expands or explores gender issues. Her most recent work, the Holy Ground Trilogy (The Ragged World, Time, Like an Ever-Rolling Stream, and The Bird Shaman), tells of the invasion and occupation of Earth by the Hefn, a benevolent and highly advanced alien race.
Moffett's first novel, Pennterra, has been out of print for far too long—but Fantastic Books has brought it back in an attractive trade paperback, and this time around you don't want to miss it.
The lush, beautiful planet Pennterra is home to the hrossa, a peaceful race of amphibian aliens. When a colonizing ship of Quakers from Earth lands, the hrossa allow them to stay but quarantine them in one specific valley. At first the colonists—including their leader, George Quinlan—chafe at the restrictions of the natives. But soon enough, they grow accustomed to their valley and they come to know the hrossa as talented ecologists willing to share their knowledge and wisdom. The Quakers broadcast a warning, prohibiting other colony ships from coming to Pennterra, and settle down to a happy and peaceful existence.
Until six years later, when the Earth colony ship Down Plus Six arrives, packed with refugees from the economic and ecological collapse of the home world. The Quakers can't turn away the newly arrived “Sixers” (and more to the point, have no way to prevent them from landing and settling). The Sixers are ready to set down and conquer their new world . . . but that isn't the Quaker way. Nor is it the way of the hrossa. . . .
Pennterra packs a thousand pages of first-rate science fiction into its scant 288. The hrossa are finely drawn aliens with their own language, culture, philosophy, and even sexuality (all of which figure into the story). The clash between the Sixers and the Quakers, with the still-largely-unknown hrossa taking their own side, is compelling. If you think you hear distant echoes of LeGuin, you're right: Moffett is a stylist as well as a good storyteller.
* * * *
C. M. Kornbluth: The Life and Works of a Science Fiction Visionary
Mark Rich
McFarland (www.mcfarlandpub.com),
451 pages, $39.95 (trade paperback)
ISBN: 978-0-7864-4393-2
Genre: Nonfiction
* * * *
Cyril (C. M.) Kornbluth was one of the pivotal figures of American science fiction. He was there at the beginning, those late-1930s days that marked the launch of Amazing Stories, the foundation of the Futurians, and the start of so many careers: Isaac Asimov, David A. Kyle, Sam Moskowitz, Frederik Pohl, Richard Wilson, Donald A. Wollheim. Kornbluth would easily take his place among those hallowed names. Two of his solo stories, “The Little Black Bag” (Astounding, 1950) and “The Marching Morons” (1951), are classics and as popular today as when they were written. His collaborations with Frederik Pohl, most notably The Space Merchants (1952) and Gladiator-At-Law (1954), are equally well regarded, as is his solo novel The Syndic (1953).
When Kornbluth died in March 1958, at the age of 35, his loss was felt throughout the science fiction community. If he had lived, he would undoubtedly have been hailed as one of the superstars of
the field.
Mark Rich has written a very detailed yet highly readable biography of this exceptional writer, which is itself a mini-history of the early decades of science fiction. Along the way, he includes commentary on just about every short story, novelette, and novel that Kornbluth produced, alone or in collaboration, under a variety of pseudonyms. A scholarly text (with the requisite 40 pages of notes) that reads like a novel, Rich's book is nothing short of a delight.
If you remember anything of that time, this will be a nostalgic journey for you; those of us who had the misfortune to be born after Kornbluth died can only marvel at this now-gone world and the geniuses who inhabited it. The book is a bit pricey, but no fan of the history of science fiction (you know who you are) can afford to be without it.
* * * *
How to Defeat Your Own Clone: And Other Tips for Surviving the Biotech Revolution
Kyle Kurpinski & Terry D. Johnson
Bantam, 180 pages, $14.00 (trade paperback)
ISBN: 978-0-533-38578-6
Genre: Popular nonfiction
* * * *
It's hard to glance at a newsfeed nowadays without seeing something about biotechnology. Even for Analog readers—who've been thinking about genetic engineering and advances in biology almost as long as we've been contemplating nuclear power and environmental disasters—the field of biotech is moving so quickly and in so many directions that it's hard to keep up. If only someone would wade through all the research and tell us what's important right now. And while they're at it, it would be great if they could manage to make it all funny.
Our prayers have been answered.
Kyle Kurpinski has a Ph.D. in Bioengineering and works on technologies for tissue regeneration; Terry D. Johnson lectures in the bioengineering department at the University of California, Berkeley. It's safe to say that these guys know their subject.
They start off with a timeline of biotechnology advances, beginning with 15,000 B.C.E. when humans domesticate dogs. “Having acquired a best friend, the human race decides to see if there's anything else in nature that could use a bit of tweaking.” Then they move on to present two conflicting scenarios for the future. In the dystopian one, a proliferation of Chuck Norris and Bruce Lee clones leads to “the most incredible yearlong kung fu battle ever.” In the utopian future, “Every child rides to school on a genetically engineered unicorn (trademarked ‘My Little Rhino-pony').”
The remaining chapters take a lighthearted look at the basics of genetics and biology, and then deal with such matters as cloning, bio-enhancements, engineering other lifeforms, and finally the all-important tips for defeating your own clone ("The best you can hope for is to persuade your friends and family to enter into a temporary truce while you and your duplicate sort this out for yourselves.")
If you're looking for a book that will bring you (or a friend) up to speed on current trends in biotech, while at the same time giving you plenty of laughs, this is the book for you.
Copyright © 2010 Don Sakers
Don Sakers is the author of A Rose From Old Terra and Dance for the Ivory Madonna. For more information, visit www.scatteredworlds.com.
[Back to Table of Contents]
* * *
Reader's Department: BRASS TACKS
Dear Stan:
I'm very pleased with the new book review column by Don Sakers. The extended references to literary history and previous works is informative without being cumbersome, and the selections include more works to my taste than I used to get out of the section. So far it's been very useful for finding new works worth reading.
George Lyons
Raleigh NC
(Subscriber for several decades)
* * * *
Dear Dr. Schmidt,
Many times I've thought about responding to one of your editorials, when I've disagreed with some idea or ideas you have advanced. In every case, upon reflection, I've decided that even though it would be vastly entertaining to sit in a pub somewhere and discuss our different opinions, my little quibbles certainly weren't worth wasting your time with an email.
Your April editorial dealing with Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), though, is another matter. I've read through it several times attempting to make sure I am clear on what you are saying and I have to say this one is different.
In the editorial, you say:
“The important debate here is about the reality and extent of, and appropriate response to, global warming—not the reliability of the readings from one group of thermometers in painted boxes.”
I had high hopes for the rest of the editorial when I first read that line. Unfortunately, the balance of the text dealt with data issues and anecdotal evidence rather than whether or not CO2 increases actually can cause catastrophic global warming. I would argue that the reliability of temperature measurements is critical if the AGW debate were to that point, but it is not.
In this case, it looks like you've allowed AGW proponents to define your boundaries by limiting your arguments to the data only and not addressing the basic premise itself. I think you've fallen into a trap: playing by the other sides’ rules is a sure way to lose any debate.
When a theory or hypothesis is advanced, the first thing you need to do is examine the idea itself, not get bogged down in hunting for, or debating the relevance of, any supporting data. In other words, the first thing to do when confronted with a new theory or idea is to determine whether it can possibly be valid. Certainly, supporting data can help in this judgment, but if the basic idea is obvious and total nonsense, any such coincidentally supporting data can do nothing to change that and is not relevant until the primary question is answered.
Employing reductio ad absurdum to illustrate my point, suppose someone told me the Moon is made of green cheese and had reams of supporting data and other evidence. I would be laugh them out of town (assuming they were serious) and would waste very little time analyzing their data sources and/or validity of same because the basic premise is nonsense. Of course, if there were a lot of money to be made by advancing the theory . . . but I digress.
On the other hand, if someone told me that 1 + 1 = 10, my first question would be what number system they were using. If a binary system, all well and good.
I'm sure you see what I'm getting at.
In the case of this current global warming silliness, I believe it more prudent to say:
“The important debate here is whether or not CO2 levels can have any significant effect on overall global temperature, and if so, how much of an effect does CO2 have in relation to other gases.”
Knowing something about chemistry, what an absorption spectrum is, and heat transfer, I've done a deal of research on CO2 and how it works as a greenhouse gas. Invariably, every legitimate source leads me to one conclusion: CO2 cannot significantly affect global temperatures regardless of ppm counts. Happily, other data (ice cores, sunspot cycles, etc) I have studied tend to support this conclusion.
So, in summary, I think the whole AGW premise is simply wrong. Almost everyone has ignored the fundamental question of the whole debate, and focused instead on secondary (and coincidental) data that are distracting at best. AGW is a non-issue, or would be if the politically active and certain financiers weren't so intent in using AGW alarmist propaganda as a pretext to advance their agendas.
Whether the planet is warming, cooling, or staying the same is a good thing to know. Knowing how the climate is trending is important for planning ahead and preparing for what can be prepared for.
However, using such climate trends to fabricate a crisis and demand great social and economic changes when said changes will do nothing except disrupt economies, encourage government excess, and line the pockets of speculators . . . Well, that is a discussion best reserved for our “someday” pub session over a pint of stout.
At any rate, I thank you for taking the time to read this and look forward to your next editorial.
Respectfully,
Steve May
* * * *
Plenty of other people have also looked at the factors you mention, perhaps in more depth, and reached different conclusions. As for dismissing the data and refusing to consider it because the premise is “obvious nonsense,” that way lie huge pitfalls. Remember that, for example, relativity, quantum mechanics,and plate tectonicswere “obvious nonsense” not many decades ago.
* * * *
Dear Stanley Schmidt,
One of our local TV stations (KUSI) recently devoted a one-hour evening program to global warming. There was only one advertising sponsor.
The presenter was John Coleman, I believe he has worked in meteorology for more than fifty years.
Part of his concern was that the number of data points (thermal readings) has been reduced since 1990, leaving the higher values. He said that the original number of data points was 6,000, now reduced to 1,000. The lower temperature values (as in mountain locations) are still there, but not accounted for in the data reduction. The present data is still compared with the previous data.
You may find the information in www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner to be of interest.
Who do we believe? One man said, “Follow the money!”
Mike Whitehead
Poway, California
* * * *
You mean, like to the oil companies?
* * * *
Dear Stanley,
I have been a subscriber to Analog for more years than I would like to count. And certainly, in that time, I have come to appreciate the works of many of your authors. But after reading a number of stories from each, one thing is seems common among them—each has certain unique characteristics about their styles. Except for one author: Rajnar Vajra. You have published a number of good stories with him listed as the author, but one thing puzzles me: Many of them seem to come from different minds.
Is Rajnar Vajra a single individual with a fantastic range of viewpoints to his thinking, or could he be a clearinghouse for a group of writers?
Analog SFF, July-August 2010 Page 40
